One of the little known pieces of car design history is that in the early 1930s Harley Earl descended from the Hollywood hills bathed in light. In his arms he cradled two pieces of brightly colored Canson paper. Inscribed upon them in wax pencil were the hallowed Rules: a set of commandments that must be followed by at all times by all car designers from this point henceforth, lest the wrath of the great man be incurred and his ghost appeared in the studio to shove your ballpoint pen up your ass sideways.
Of course, this never fucking happened. Really what there are, are guidelines around how things are laid out, and the spatial relationships between one part and it’s neighbors. They’re a basic framework to help you get the underlying fundamentals correct. For example: understanding the different positions of the A pillar and where it points in relation to the center line of the front axle for different layouts of car, is critical for getting the passenger compartment volumes right. Considering them is only one part of ensuring your car looks good, because there are still lots of other things to consider: the failure of the Bangle era BMWs wasn’t their underlying proportions ignoring these fundamentals – it was their complicated twisted panels, unsettled ill-fitting details and generally cold demeanor, and the fact they flushed years of carefully evolved BMW design straight down the shitter. Take away all that surface distraction, and underneath the volumes and proportions were correct.
A few weeks back when I wrote about my problems with the Jaguar E-Type, there were comments. The main thrust of that piece was that my trained designer eye wouldn’t quite let me see past the issues I had with its proportions, and the awkward angles of the A and B pillars. Shit was flung my way from a variety of directions, namely that if the E-Type breaks The Rules then The Rules must be a fifteen pound bag of bullshit. And if I’m applying them to a sixty year old car I’m being unfair. Visual theory about form and balance is universal and not tied to any time period, but really my bigger personal problems with the E-Type are what it stood for subjectively. I understand that a lot of people like it, and consider it a beautiful car. And I see that. I do. It just doesn’t fill the gaping maw in the center of my existence with any kind of pleasurable human emotions the way say, a Ferrari 250 GTE does.
Let Me Show You How I Worked This Out
Being a car designer is about having qualified opinions that you can back up with critical thinking and sketch work to demonstrate your ideas. So with that in mind and to show you all I’m not above eating my own words for the amusement of the great and noble Autopian commentariat. I’m going to put my money where my mouth is. Not in front of a bar person or exotic dancer but by altering the E-Type according to what I said about it last month. That way you can all see if what I said works or whether I’m full of designer crap. You can all judge me they way I silently judge all of you.
The important thing to understand is not everything a designer initially creates is a masterpiece. Design is a process. That process involves getting your ideas down on paper and seeing what has merit and what doesn’t. You can have the most amazing ideas rattling around in your brain for months, only to start sketching them out to find they just don’t work when you try to give form to them. Likewise a designer is not always the best judge of their own ideas. Massimo was always saying he didn’t always want to see beautiful Photoshop renders but pages of scrappy ballpoint thumbnails on the board. He wanted to see the working out, not the end result. I always encourage my students to do the same: to put their work up on the board even if they’re not entirely happy with it. This isn’t because left to their own devices student car designers will torture themselves inside out trying to find something they’re happy with (they will, literally sketching for months until they run out of time to do the rest of the design work); it’s because you never know exactly what will knock the chief designer’s multi colored socks off. Something you don’t like might be exactly what they are looking for.
Running With Scissors
When J Mays was my tutor at the Royal College of Art, one of the simple little tricks he taught me was how to alter your ballpoint side view sketches. Simply cut the sketch in half down the middle. Then you can move the two halves closer together or further apart to alter the length of your design. Then you can use that as an underlay to sketch over if you think it works better. Using the same images from Jaguar media as the previous article, I’ve done something similar in Photoshop. I think the E-Type has too much dash-to-axle ratio (the distance from the base of the windscreen to the rearmost edge of the front tire, when looking at the side view). Here is the standard car, and my altered version with a slightly reduced dash-to-axle ratio:
I had the boys back at the Autopian lab run the pixels on this and I’ve taken about 3” of sheet metal out of the area between the front wheel arch and the edge of the hood. Can you see the new problem my alteration has created? There are no free lunches – every time you change something in car design it has an effect somewhere else. In this case, shortening the dash-to-axle has had the corresponding effect of making the rear overhang look longer as a proportion of the total wheelbase. Now the rear of the car is starting to look a little bit dumpy and heavy. Let’s remedy that by moving the rear axle backwards about 2” to reduce the rear overhang. A couple of inches here and there doesn’t sound like a big deal, but car design is all about nuance. Small changes can have a big effect.
A More Famous Car Designer Agrees With Me
One of the other things that came up in the debate under the original E-Type piece was that design is subjective, and therefore there’s no way any two cars designers agree on anything or have a consensus. Well guess what fuckos, I have the receipts. Friend of the Autopian and a car designer with a slightly more glittering resume than mine, Frank Stephenson made a YouTube video about the E-Type. I didn’t know about this until someone posted it in the comments, so I had to watch it hidden under a prototype Autopian dog blanket in case Peter caught me and thought I was slacking off and not being productive. Frank raised exactly the same issue I had with the A and B pillar of the E-Type, and I haven’t met him at any of weekly car designer cocktail parties.
When you look at a side view, ideally all the pillars should point to an imaginary convergence point somewhere over the roof of the car. If it’s a longer car like a wagon or an SUV, there might be one convergence point for the front pair of pillars, A and B, and one for the rear pair C and D. Again, this is not a hard and fast rule, but should be taken into consideration to make sure your pillars have a relationship with each other and don’t point all over the place drunkenly like an Autopian staff meeting. On the image below you can see I’ve changed the A pillar (the one that frames the windshield) by moving the base forwards, helping get rid of the knee cap removal corner in the door opening and making it more sympathetic to the B pillar, which I’ve stood up slightly.
Moving the rear axle back to reduce the rear overhang has created a bit of room to move the entire B pillar backwards making the door opening bigger still, which makes the division between the front and rear side glass better balanced.
On the top view, altering the A pillar has softened the curve of the windshield, meaning now we can have two full size wipers as opposed to three smaller ones, reducing part count and complexity, while maintaining roughly the same swept area.
Here’s a front three quarter view.
Frank rendered up his ideas freehand in pen and marker. I’ve not done that for time reasons and because when you do something like that with an existing car, you run the risk of introducing an unavoidable element of artistic interpretation. That’s fine for YouTube content wow-factor but less useful for making a considered design decision. Remember in my Defender piece I said that during the design process for that car I would always alter existing images for any trim changes, to evaluate wheel options, or suggest proposals for different versions. You need to have a known baseline for comparison. You’re brain is probably going to automatically reject my alterations, because the E-Type is so familiar, but part of being a designer is rejecting that initial visceral reaction and taking time to get used to what’s changed.
Unless otherwise stated all images courtesy of Jaguar Media.
- Why I Hate ‘The Most Beautiful Car Ever Made’
- What I Would Fix On The New Land Rover Defender, A Car I Helped Design
- The Supercharged 575-Horsepower 2024 Jaguar F-Type R 75 Wants You To Feel Something
- I Can’t Decide If This Jaguar V6 Made By Blanking Off Two Cylinders From A V8 Is Genius Or Just Lazy
That’s pretty much exactly what it needs. Penis effect is gone and it looks like a valid successor to the D-type. It’s amazing how much better the window lines flow whereas the original A-pillar looks like a die cast car some kid whacked with a rock, pushing the windshield header forward. Normally, I prefer coupes, but I previously preferred the roadster here because it didn’t have the awkward pillars (well, the a-pillar, but at least it was alone) that made the whole back end look like a large potato was set onto a scale E-type roadster and molded around (that’s the nicer comparison). I’m surprised that just moving the A-pillar worked so well, as I always thought the windshield might have also needed more rake, but I think this looks right without that change.
Okay I will try to be nice.
1. You’re totally frigging wrong.
Okay that didn’t work. But you like adage? Those who can’t do teach. Your teacher done you wrong son. Okay impartial input. The E-type Jaguar sold great and almost 80 years later sells for more than most people can afford. So accusing it of lacking is wrong. Maybe what is successful? A car that sells or a pos that meets random art student design rules? Given auto manufacturers want to sell cars I guess selling cars is a great measurement. So we have Etype sales what car that you and your mentor designed and how well did it sell?
Zero? Got to go E Type Jaguar for the win. Car design is an art, and like art it is subjective. Look at the different types of art that changed during the centuries. You can’t state Certainties in design. Art is decided by the masses and you and your mentor are wrong. Sales decides the winners.
And I bet jag would have sold even more if they went with Adrian’s changes. It just looks better his way
I disagree but art is subjective.
The E-type sold well because it was relatively cheap in its day for its performance and it was hot off the reputation of their race winning D-types, plus it was flashy, like a lot of ugly cars that also sold well. Sales numbers are poor indicators of just about anything beyond company profit. McDonalds has sold billions of meals and all kinds of terrible fads were immensely popular. The E-types were pretty cheap on the used market for a long time before their used prices went up. You know what other old cars have gone up in value? Pretty much anything post war. There are stinking B-and G-bodies going for over $20k. And speaking of quality, as someone who part restored one, they were utter garbage—disposable baubles for the nouveau riche and were built to that expectation (also how they were relatively cheap). Maybe that has nothing to do with the design, but it does speak to how they were intended to fit in the market. As for his opinion, it’s certainly no less valid than your own.
So it was a vetted or a Stellantis? Power but ugly? I disagree.
Obviously, a lot of people think they’re attractive as these cars make it onto every recycled lazy “Top 10 Beautiful Car” slide shows from sites. I think they’re perhaps the most overrated design there has been. I always thought it was awkward looking, but after working on them, I thoroughly hate them (except the engine). Adrian’s changes also don’t address the major problem of the partially closed front wheel openings that restrict steering angle and necessitate a ridiculous tippitoes narrow track that still requires about three football fields to pull a U-turn.
Nah power, RWD, hit the gas swing that ass around in sitting position. Not to mention prior to power steering no car turned that well.
Also I am willing to learn I missed your credentials?
I mean mine is just opinion but you can demonstrate your experience here?
It’s not the steering being power or not, it’s that you can only turn the wheels a little bit before they hit the fenders. Where most cars would need a 3-point turn, the E-type would need, like, 6. If you look at the SIIIs, you can see they opened up the wheel wells and fixed it (at least it looks like they fixed it—I only have too much familiarity with an SI).
Lol wut?!
Sales numbers mean people like it for what it is much more than it means anything about a companies profit making ability.
Sales numbers have nothing (or at least very little) to do with how good a product is and certainly have no bearing on whether something is good beyond the context of its time (see popular fad items that are targets of mockery later on). Maybe something sells well because it’s good, but as most products are broadly similar to their contemporary competitors, it’s just as likely down to better timing, marketing, price, specific design or engineering choice, etc. McDonalds has outsold every other restaurant, but it would be an odd waterfowl who would proclaim that them having the best food was the reason for it. PT Cruisers sold like hotcakes. Terrible junk sells well all the time and history is just as littered with good products that didn’t sell (some of which get recognized too late and become highly regarded and valued later on)—maybe it was poor marketing, or bad timing, bean counters removing too many beans, whatever, but sales numbers or lack thereof bear little relation to how good a product is. No idea why you brought company profit making into it, but taking your statement as something separate, I don’t disagree.
I brought profit into it because you said sales number are a good indicator for companies profits when they’re not.
Everyone’s barometer of what is good is different. We as car guys didn’t like PT Cruisers, it was bad for our tastes, but for plenty of people it was a good vehicle because they don’t care about what we care about. The rest of the world isn’t like us. For the mass of people, what sells well is what is good, in the context of whatever is selling. Yes, McDonalds is bad food in general. But it’s the best of the worst.
Ah, yeah, that wasn’t the point I meant by that sentence. I missed the word “maybe” to indicate more that, if it had anything to do with anything, it was to do with the financial end, not, say, anything to do with cultural significance.
OK, Hyundai Excels sold well, then. There are probably hundreds of examples of bad things that sold well. Maybe some of their customers were happy with those products, like some people are happy eating McDonalds. People like IKEA furniture, too, but just because they don’t know any better or they tell themselves it’s good because it’s all they can afford (even though it’s not really that cheap) or because the IKEA effect skews their perception or they’re just easily satisfied doesn’t mean that unrecyclable, fall-apart, landfill fodder is good furniture, merely good enough for someone at that time. I guess part of it is perception of quality. I would say it’s generally well accepted that something that lasts a long time, particularly with minimal fuss required, is considered good quality. PT Cruisers, Hyundai Excels, and IKEA furniture do not fall into that category. Funny enough, though, McDonald’s burgers do—those things can apparently sit out for years without rotting! Maybe IKEA should make their furniture out of those.
McDonald’s (who I will nearly always defend) sells on being a known quantity, although that’s less of a novelty now that it has been in the past.
Funny that you say that as, when I was in Luxor, I didn’t feel like trusting any of the local places, so we went to McDonalds as I figured those belly bombs were the devil I knew. They did sit in my stomach with an unpleasant demeanor, but they stayed where they belonged, which is more than I would expect of the place we passed that was sorting bread out on cardboard laid down on a sidewalk that hadn’t been cleaned since upper and lower kingdoms united. Come to think of it, I think that was the last time I had McDonalds, so it’s been about . . . 25 years. Jesus.
Yes. This is what I am trying to get at but didn’t really know a good way to say it. Thanks! We’ve come along way from car design, Adrian, I’m psyched you’re down here in the weeds with us discussing HOW products become popular.
Car design is essentially a very specialized type of product design. A good designer should have a broad understanding of lots of different (non-automotive) creative and retail fields, because it will better help them understand markets and consumers. This is a why lot of car design students fail, because their outlook simply isn’t wide enough.
There is an element of truth to this. I would say, the E-Type had a lot of other things going for it, namely performance, price and racing pedigree. That doesn’t mean the design can’t be improved a bit. But ultimately none of us really know what drove the car to turn out looking the way it did because we weren’t there. Would my changes have amounted to more sales? Of course not.
That being said there sometimes is a dissonance between what designers think is good and what resonates with the public – the BMW i8 is a case in point, and a good designer should have a bit of humility because ultimately the goal is to do good work and sell cars.
Good design will help sell a bad car, but a bad design will certainly sink a good car.
I agree and I admire your design and art skills of which I have none. But while your design is still very attractive I don’t think it’s better and declarative statements are more example of lack of a good argument. To me at least.
Probably not, but, as you noted, redesigning the windscreen (sic) and A-pillar would have reduced complexity and costs, and since the E-type wasn’t that profitable, any little cost savings might have helped, although almost assuredly not enough to maintain Jaguar’s independence.
To be fair, he’s a real designer, not a student, and he’s had a hand in real cars like the new Land Rover Defender, and that thing isn’t exactly a dud. 🙂
And to be doubly fair, sales aren’t really an accurate measure of a vehicle’s beauty. The Big Three sell literal millions of pickups and they aren’t looking any better as time goes on. Chrysler sold tons of PT Cruisers, and many enthusiasts would call those ugly, too.
Many people like velvet Elvis, Dogs playing poker, flowers in a meadow etc. Is it only the artists who decide? That has created urinals, bullwhips inserted in the Anusara, cambells soup cans. And really shouldn’t cambells get credit instead of the artist who copied it? Is it not art if the masses like it?
I once told one of my art teachers I quite liked Warhol. She rather humorously replied it was okay to have a guilty pleasure.
I like your art teacher. LOL
Interesting point, but the Jaguar XKE, as an exotic, was not intended to sell in mass numbers. I think cars in this niche generally do rely on appearance as a major selling point. I would not buy an XKE if, all other attributes being equal, it looked like an Amphicar.
And I hope you fixed the stupid exterior door handles that are too small to get more than your fingertips in.
The E-Type is a penis. You want to shorten it?
English, though, so it should have had some loose urethane 5-mph bumper at the front.
I would like a front elevation. Frank Stevenson’s sketches sort of address the problem I have with these, they are pigeon toed. Eagle cars do something about this.
I’ve just been having this exact conversation with Wayne Burgess on Twitter. It’s a minefield and I don’t think the Eagles are better.
I am not sure either, the really annoying thing is when you know there is an an annoying thing, and, just out of reach, there is a solution. That is really annoying.
This is why it takes time and experience to get it right. You have to iterate and iterate, not something that smaller (non-OEM) companies have the time or resources to do.
This is why I a had a career as as a theoretical macro-economist.
I do like it more with your redesigns. If I had done this assignment, I think I would have ended up taking another inch out between dash and front axle. Even after the 3 inch removal, its still very long looking to me.
I like it better in just about every way. But somehow with all the changes together the length of the front feels more out of proportion.
I’m neither a designer or an engineer (and this might sound stupid), but I am curious if moving the wheels in relation to the chassis/altering the wheelbase would have an effect on drivability.
I’ll likely never have the opportunity to sit in an E Type to potentially break my kneecaps, but I wouldn’t kick either design out of my garage.
This was a design exercise, not an engineering one, but the changes here would certainly have an effect on handling. In general, a shorter wheelbase will make it more eager to turn, if less stable at speed, but with much of it lost to the front with that long, heavy engine sticking out farther forward past the axle line, it should understeer more.
Basic rulesof thumb:
Short wheelbase means more agile and ‘pointy’, quicker to turn, (picture the front and rear wheels tinted, creating an arc, shorter the wheelbase the tighter the arc for same amount of steering angle) but busier, less refined ride over bumps
Long wheelbase means less agile, more languid handling and better ride as the suspension has more time to sort the front wheel before the rear wheel hits the same bump
Turned, not tinted!
A massive improvement, but almost makes it look like an earlier generation of the Datsun 240Z, which I guess shows the success of that design.
Side on, the bonnet being too long inthe standard design makes it look weak at the base of the windscreen, almost suggesting a sag in the chassis at that point.
Please could you stack the side images above each other like you have the aerial ones so I can see the progression of your improvements?
My friend says the 300SL is ugly, and from some angles, I agree. Would love to see you make that thing a looker and not just because it wins, to paraphrase Enzo
I love those cars, but it does have a kind of heaviness to it with the slab sides that don’t wrap underneath like many sports cars of its day and the fender winglet things are a little busy, plus the rear kind of drops off. In person, though, I think they look really good.
carefully places the last torch in the top layer, then folds the oiled leather back over them and fits the lid
Ok, I think I see what you’re getting at
[ “No, Pieter, we won’t be needing them this evening, but do give them a good oiling before you crate them: the day will come—and we want them gleaming when it does.” ]
As much as it is considered one of the pinnacles of automotive design, I always thought the long hood and the curve of the fastback made it look odd. Not only does it look too phallic, but it just looks kinda lopped off on the back. However, I don’t think shortening the hood is the right move. Perhaps stretching the back would give it a better sense of balance. Case in point, the roadster E-Type is massively better looking IMO because the trunk visually lengthens the space behind the passenger compartment.
Fair. I could have done the convertible as well but I couldn’t be bothered.
While I wouldn’t kick your version out of my garage, it looks beautiful but more conventional, like a Datsun 240Z. I argue that the original E-type is perfect in the same way that a supermodel can look gangly or dowdy in some poses but the overall effect is more than a combination of details. It is perfect because it exists outside the accepted dimensions of mortals.
There is certainly a ‘beauty in the imperfection’ discussion to be had.
Adrian, I’m with you on this. I never thought of the E-type as being particularly beautiful. I always though the hood was too long, and that the overall proportions just didn’t quite work. That being said, I think your modifications make it look better, but I’d still never own one, even if I could afford it. Not because of the repair and maintenance bills I would expect, but because there are better looking cars out there. That Ferrari you mentioned comes to mind, or the Alfa Romeo Tipo 33 Stradale. I think that Alfa is the best looking car ever personally.
An E-type is and always has been both exotic and obtainable. An upper middle class person cannot buy an Alfa Tipo 33, Lambo Miura, or Ferrari 250.
I wrote about it a while back:
https://www.theautopian.com/why-the-new-alfa-romeo-tipo-33-stradale-cant-measure-up-to-the-gorgeous-original/
Its the same car
OMG I thought it was just me! I don’t see a difference!
This is why I’m a car designer and you’re….. whatever you do for a living.
I think 99% of people would agree, even if they were placed side-by-side. But, as an Autopian, you are held to a higher standard.
Sigh. Ok, I’ll read it again. Sorry.
For more information, please re-read.
I’ve now re-read and re-examined the evidence. Our Goth Uncle is trying to put one over on us! There is no difference in these images!
See me after class. Matron will book you an appointment to the optometrist..
Subtle rake in the windshield, slightly shorter hood.. yeah, I see it, but it doesn’t really change the needle at all. Same car.
Same car, but better.
Stop using my own sarky remarks against me. This insubordination will not be tolerated.
Okay outside the argument you two are funny.
Here: n
You dropped this.
That’s it. You’re going on The List. Oh wait, it appears you’re ALREADY on The List.
Turns to back page of Moleskin and starts a new special list.
Me too! I was goin to link to the Pam from the Office “It’s the same picture” meme.
But now it just looks like the grandfather of a 280z and a Cobra Coupe’s well behaved, older brother.
Too short. Ass not fat enough.
Blocked and reported.
I agree with Adrian but I still hearted this comment.
I’ve been blocked and reported by better people than you.
I should have known you would go for quality over quantity.
Almost certainly not. ????
Someone’s channeling Peter Brock without realizing it. It’s probably due to the brain damage from having heard Beatles music. 😉
Hey Adrian, You know I’m only jesting with the Beatles shit, right? You drive a Mondial, so you are by default a hero of mine and I’d be deeply ashamed if you thought I was actually ever making mean fun of you.
Don’t worry I wouldn’t dish it if I couldn’t take it.
It just occurred to me how much fun it would be to send you back to London 1963 for a spell. You might get arrested over your appearance, but the looks on your face would be priceless.
I’d be going insane from the bloody Beatles blaring out everywhere. And getting shitfaced at 2p a pint.
Would be an incentive for you to sort out the currency, and maybe realise (sic) that 12 can be evenly divided by 3, 4, 2 and 6, which makes it much easier to split up a shilling than a decimalised (sic) pound.
Inflation has solved that problem, by making things that used to cost a shilling cost twelve quid.
I think the shortened version looks a bit stumpy, but I’ve also always thought that the coupe roof looks weird. I might go so far as to argue that the convertible is the only good looking E-Type.
I think my problem with it is that the a-pillars are too upright, so the curve of the roof runs into a wall. The adjusted pillars are better, but I wonder if moving the base of the A-pillar further forward and the top further back might be part of a solution. The roof is also a bit tall in relation to the body sides but if it’s lower it would just be a car nobody could fit in, and making the sides thicker takes away some of the delicacy.
I dunno if changing the wheel location makes much difference, but hoo-boy, changing the A and B pillars makes a WORLD of difference.
I propose that in car design the measurement of beauty and function should be measured from the inside not the outside.
“Except if someone with actual experience writes an article. In that case I’ll make a weird appeal to the masses about the car being popular, something no one argued, instead of responding to the differences in the design.”
Excuse me?
I don’t know. Both versions look fine. The phallusy in your argument is that, given a choice, almost no one ever picks the shorter cockstand. It’s that visceral reaction that sold the XKE.
THE AUDACITY!
Just kidding. I think your changes work. I did google a pic of the engine bay, and I think engineers could get it to work.
Even your updates doesnt save the Coupe. The Coupe E-Type is hideous in all aspects thanks to having the ugliest roof known to man, thanks largely to that steeply raked windshield. Do the wheelbase adjustment on a correct E-Type (The convertible!) and i think i’d love it.
Low Drag prototype also fixes the roof issue.
The 2+2 being the worst of the bunch. Barf.
What is wrong with you two?! 😉
I honestly didn’t know people didn’t like it.
E-Type 2+2 is among the very worst looking cars of its time.
Anytime I see a 2+2 I ask myself why anyone would purchase it. It is very, very atrocious to me.
The changes you have made are very subtle. Any way one of the e-gremlins in the computer lab can give us a gif or something of the changes overlayed with the stock car?
Also a tangent: for every rule there’s an exception (I think that’s a rule itself.) Based on that statement, is there a car that breaks all the rules of good design, but still somehow looks good? If not, can you make one?
Nissan S-Cargo
Nissan Rasheen. Most things that begin with “Cit” and end with “roën”.
Alfa Romeo SZ?
I’d like to see his take on the second generation Dodge Charger. At a minimum, it’s got really long overhangs and a narrow track (the latter easily and often remedied), but works so damn well, anyway.
If you go back and read one of my articles about big wheels, I used a Charger as an example of how overwheeled (pro-touring) muscle cars can look shit. Because they were not designed around those big wheel sizes.
Now that you mention it, I recall that, and I agree about the wheels. I was just curious if you found the design of the car as confounding as I did in that I feel it works very well overall in spite of itself.
I’ve always said that I think the best designs of the past, with sympathetic updates to lighting, glazing and stance could be on sale today. The Charger definitely fits into that category.
Those top views of the hood really drive home the *ahem* male imagery that is only suggested at by the side view.
I thank you for the explanation of the process and thought that goes into making those changes. As a normal, I can understand it, but definitely do not have the current skills to make those changes myself.
But my subconscious brain immediately agrees with the final version that you have created, and my subconscious is effortlessly smarter at identifying what looks good.
It’s almost like I know what I’m talking about.
Sarcasm: Just another one of the many services you offer!!!
I provide that one free of charge.